Thursday, November 19, 2009

Supposedly, someone broke into CRU and swiped a huge amount of files (emails and the like) and dumped them out on the web. Included (so they say) is an email which seems to show open falsifying of data to produce warming that didn't happen.

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today orfirst thing tomorrow.I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real tempsto each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe anybody would be this stupid.

UPDATE:

Turns out CRU is confirming the hack, and Phil Jones is starting to offer "What I meant to say...."

Jeeeeeezus.

UPDATE X2:

It looks like Climate Audit is suffering a denial of service attack. I guess the AGW crowd is playing by "The Chicago Way." Of course this is stupid as we have no idea who did the original hack on CRU, and there is no way Steve McIntyre had anything to do with it. Grow up people, or at least stop acting guilty. Adding: CA is available again, but damn slow. No word that a DOS attack actually happened.

UPDATE X3:

Still almost nothing about this in the MSM. The BBC did a quick story that mentioned only the hack itself and none of the information disclosed. Roy Spencer asks a pertinent question:

If the hacked e-mails — with incriminating content — just happened to be Sarah Palin’s, does ANYONE believe that news reports would avoid disclosing the content of those e-mails?

Not me.

UPDATE X4:

Hot Air has a good run down of some of the most salacious bits of this.

Funny how the American MSM have suddenly decided that Global Warming news isn't anything people are interested in. (The lie in that is shown by the fact the IMW is having more visits then any other day this year...and it's only 1PM.)

4 comments:

Ed Snack
said...

Remember the Enron emails ? Pretty explosive stuff in them as well. A lot of people just treat email like it is private, forgetting how easily they can get released.

Nope, I go for real, but I agree that a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted. Now we have a specific piece of data, one can challenge (using FOI or whatever) the putative author to reveal the original, if it exists. Some content has been verified, but the possibility exists of individual file tampering, a huge job to do though, huge.